DOCKET NO.: 0107945.00235US3
`Filed By: Donald R. Steinberg, Reg. No. 37,241
`
`
`David L. Cavanaugh, Reg. No. 36,476
`Michael H. Smith, Reg. No. 71,190
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`Tel: (617) 526-6000
`Email: Don.Steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
` David.Cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com
` MichaelH.Smith@wilmerhale.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________________________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`ASML NETHERLANDS B.V., EXCELITAS TECHNOLOGIES CORP., AND QIOPTIQ
`PHOTONICS GMBH & CO. KG,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Case IPR2015-01303
`
`
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 7,435,982
`CLAIMS 1, 3-4, 10, 16, 21, 24-27, 30, 31, AND 34
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`MANDATORY NOTICES ............................................................................. 1
`A.
`Real Parties-in-Interest .......................................................................... 1
`B.
`Related Matters ...................................................................................... 1
`C.
`Counsel .................................................................................................. 1
`D.
`Service Information ............................................................................... 2
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING .................................. 2
`II.
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED .................... 2
`A. Grounds for Challenge .......................................................................... 2
`B.
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon ...................... 2
`C.
`Relief Requested .................................................................................... 3
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART .......................................... 3
`OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT ............................................................ 3
`A.
`Summary of the Prosecution History .................................................... 5
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................ 6
`A.
`“Light source” ....................................................................................... 7
`B.
`“High brightness light” .......................................................................... 9
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID ......................................... 12
`A.
`Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long
`Before the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent ......................................... 12
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID ... 14
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24-25, 30, and 31 are
`anticipated by Gärtner ......................................................................... 14
`1. Gärtner is prior art that was not considered by the Patent Office
`during examination ....................................................................... 15
`2. Overview of Gärtner ..................................................................... 15
`3.
`Independent Claim 1 .................................................................... 18
`4.
`Independent Claim 30 .................................................................. 22
`5. Dependent Claims 3 and 31 – Optical Element for the Laser ...... 25
`
`i
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`6. Dependent Claim 4 – Optical element is a lens or mirror ............ 26
`7. Dependent Claim 10 – Sealed Chamber ...................................... 27
`8. Dependent Claim 16 – Gas is xenon or other gases ..................... 27
`9. Dependent Claim 21 – Laser is pulsed or continuous .................. 28
`10. Dependent Claim 24 – Ignition source is a pulsed laser,
`electrodes, or other types of ignition sources ............................... 28
`11. Dependent Claim 25 – Ignition source is external or internal to
`the chamber .................................................................................. 29
`Ground 2: Claims 26, 27, and 34 are obvious over Gärtner ............... 29
`1. Claims 26 and 34 – Optical element to modify the light ............. 30
`2. Claim 27 - optical element is a mirror or a lens .......................... 33
`IX. RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS RAISED BY PATENT OWNER IN ITS
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION .................................................. 34
`A.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding ”High Brightness Light” ....... 34
`B.
`Patent Owner’s Arguments Regarding Objective Indicia of
`Non-Obviousness ................................................................................ 39
`CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 41
`
`X.
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`I. MANDATORY NOTICES
`A. Real Parties-in-Interest
`ASML Netherlands B.V., Excelitas Technologies Corp., and Qioptiq
`
`Photonics GmbH & Co. KG (“Petitioners”) are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`B. Related Matters
`U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982 (“the ’982 patent,” Ex. 1001) is one member of a
`
`patent family of continuation, continuation in part, and divisional applications.
`
`Exhibit 1002 shows the members of this patent family and the relationships among
`
`them. Petitioners are also seeking inter partes review of additional claims of the
`
`’982 patent and of related U.S. Patent Nos. 7,786,455 (“the ’455 patent”);
`
`8,309,943 (“the ’943 patent”); 8,525,138 (“the ’138 patent”); and 8,969,841 (“the
`
`’841 patent”). Petitioners request that the inter partes reviews of the ’982, ’455,
`
`’943,’138, and ʼ841 patents be assigned to the same Panel for administrative
`
`efficiency.
`
`The following litigation matter would affect or be affected by a decision in
`
`this proceeding: Energetiq Technology, Inc. v. ASML Netherlands B.V., et al, Civil
`
`Action No. 1:15-cv-10240-LTS (D. Mass).
`
`C. Counsel
`Lead Counsel: Don R. Steinberg (Registration No. 37,241)
`
`First Backup Counsel: David L. Cavanaugh (Registration No. 36,476)
`
`Second Backup Counsel: Michael H. Smith (Registration No. 71,190)
`
`1
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`Service Information
`
`D.
`Email: Don R. Steinberg, don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com
`
`Post and Hand Delivery: WilmerHale, 60 State St., Boston MA 02109
`
`Telephone: 617-526-6453
`
`
`
`Facsimile: 617-526-5000
`
`II. CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING
`Petitioners certify pursuant to Rule 42.104(a) that the patent for which
`
`review is sought is available for inter partes review and that Petitioners are not
`
`barred or estopped from requesting an inter partes review challenging the patent
`
`claims on the grounds identified in this Petition.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGE AND RELIEF REQUESTED
`Pursuant to Rules 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b)(1)-(2), Petitioners challenge
`
`claims 1, 3-4, 10, 16, 21, 24-27, 30, 31, and 34 of the ’982 patent (“the challenged
`
`claims”) and request that each challenged claim be cancelled.
`
`A. Grounds for Challenge
`This Petition, supported by the declaration of Dr. J. Gary Eden, a Professor
`
`of Electrical Engineering at the University of Illinois (“Eden Decl.,” Ex. 1003),
`
`demonstrates that there is a reasonable likelihood that Petitioners will prevail with
`
`respect to at least one of the challenged claims and that each of the challenged
`
`claims is unpatentable for the reasons cited in this petition. See 35 U.S.C. §
`
`314(a).
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications Relied Upon
`
`2
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Petitioners rely upon the following patents and printed publications:
`
`1. French Patent Publication No. FR2554302A1, published May 3, 1985 with
`
`English Translation (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1004), and is prior art to the ʼ982 patent
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
`
`C. Relief Requested
`Petitioners request that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cancel the
`
`challenged claims because they are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of skill in the art at the time of the alleged invention of the ’982
`
`patent would have had a Ph.D. in physics, electrical engineering, or an equivalent
`
`field and 2-4 years of work experience with lasers and plasma, or a master’s degree
`
`in physics, electrical engineering, or an equivalent field and 4-5 years of work
`
`experience with lasers and plasma. (Eden Decl. ¶ 23 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`V.
`
` OVERVIEW OF THE ’982 PATENT
`
`The ’982 patent is directed to a laser sustained plasma light source for use in,
`
`for example, testing and inspection for semiconductor manufacturing. As depicted
`
`in Figure 1, reproduced below, the light source includes: (1) a chamber 128
`
`(green), (2) an ignition source 140 (blue) for generating a plasma 132, and (3) a
`
`laser 104 (red) for providing energy to the plasma 132 to produce a high brightness
`
`light 136. (’982 patent, 1:46-50 (Ex. 1001).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1003).) The
`
`3
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`’982 patent identifies several types of “ignition sources,” such as “electrodes”
`
`(shown below) and “pulsed lasers” (not shown). (’982 Patent at 7:7-24 (Ex.
`
`1001).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 24 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`
`
`According to the ’982 patent, prior art light sources relied upon electrodes to
`
`both generate and sustain the plasma, which resulted in wear and contamination.
`
`(’982 patent, 1:20-40 (Ex. 1001).) Thus, a need allegedly arose for a way to
`
`sustain plasma without relying on an electrical discharge from electrodes. (’982
`
`patent, 1:20-40 (Ex. 1001).) The alleged invention involves using a laser to
`
`provide energy to sustain the plasma to produce a “high brightness” light. (See,
`
`e.g., ’982 patent, 1:46-50 (Ex. 1001).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 25 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`As discussed below, there was nothing new about sustaining a plasma with a
`
`laser to produce high brightness light. Multiple prior art references, including
`
`Gärtner, disclosed laser-sustained plasma light sources with the same elements as
`
`the ’982 patent: a chamber, an ignition source, and a laser.
`
`4
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Summary of the Prosecution History
`
`A.
`
`The ’982 patent issued from U.S. Patent Appl. No. 11/395,523, filed on
`
`March 31, 2006. On August 25, 2008, all the claims were allowed without
`
`rejection. The ’982 patent issued on October 14, 2008. (’982 Patent (Ex. 1001).)
`
`In the Notice of Allowability, the Examiner explained that prior art to
`
`Hoshino disclosed “a light source which has a laser that generates a plasma,” and
`
`prior art to Sato disclosed a “light source where a laser beam excites gas (for
`
`emitting UV and EUV light) that is sealed in a bulb tube.” (Notice of Allowability
`
`dated Aug. 28, 2008 at 3 (Ex. 1007).) Thus, the Examiner recognized that using a
`
`laser to generate a plasma light source was not inventive. (Eden Decl. ¶ 28 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`The Examiner nonetheless allowed the claims because the Examiner was not
`
`aware of prior art that disclosed the combination of an ignition source that
`
`generates the plasma and a laser beam that sustains the plasma. (Notice of
`
`Allowability dated Aug. 28, 2008 at 3 (Ex. 1007).)
`
`The Examiner did not consider Gärtner, which was not of record during the
`
`prosecution of the ’982 patent. Gärtner discloses an ignition source that generates
`
`the plasma and a laser beam that sustains the plasma to produce a high brightness
`
`light. In fact, as further discussed below, high brightness light sources with
`
`ignition sources that generate the plasma and laser beams that sustain the plasma
`
`5
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`were well-known long before the priority date of the ’982 patent. (Eden Decl. ¶ 30
`
`(Ex. 1003).)
`
`VI. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`A claim in inter partes review is given the “broadest reasonable construction
`
`in light of the specification of the patent in which [they] appear[].” 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.100(b); see Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,756, 48,764,
`
`48,766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary
`
`meaning as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`of the invention and in the context of the entire patent disclosure. In re Translogic
`
`Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the specification sets forth an
`
`alternate definition of a term with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision,
`
`the patentee’s lexicography governs. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1994).
`
`Should the Patent Owner, seeking to avoid the prior art, contend that the
`
`claims have a construction different from their broadest reasonable construction,
`
`the appropriate course is for the Patent Owner to seek to amend the claims to
`
`expressly correspond to its contentions in this proceeding. See 77 Fed. Reg.
`
`48,764; 48,766-67.
`
`Consistent with this standard, this section proposes, under the broadest
`
`reasonable construction standard, constructions of terms and provides support for
`
`6
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`these proposed constructions. Terms not included in this section have their
`
`broadest reasonable meaning in light of the specification as commonly understood
`
`by those of ordinary skill.
`
`“Light source”
`
`A.
`The term “light source” appears in claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24-26, 27, 30,
`
`31, and 34. “Light source” should be construed to mean “a source of
`
`electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum
`
`ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700
`
`nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1 µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1000 µm) regions of the spectrum.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 31
`
`(Ex. 1003).)
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of “light source”1 is a source of
`
`electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum
`
`ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700
`
`nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1 µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`1 The term “light” is sometimes used more narrowly to refer only to visible light.
`
`However, references to “ultraviolet light” in the ’982 patent make clear that the
`
`broader meaning is intended because ultraviolet light has a wavelength shorter than
`
`that of visible light. (See, e.g., ’982 patent, 6:47-49; 7:65-67; 8:6-9; 8:37-39 (Ex.
`
`1001).) (See Eden Decl. ¶ 32 n.1 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`7
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1000 µm) regions of the spectrum. (See, e.g., William T.
`
`Silfvast, “Laser Fundamentals” at 4 (“Silfvast”) (Ex. 1009).) The Patent Owner
`
`publishes a data sheet which is consistent with the ordinary and customary
`
`meaning in referring to EUV wavelengths as within the meaning of “light source.”
`
`(See, e.g., Energetiq EQ-10M Data Sheet at 2 (describing Energetiq’s EQ-10
`
`product operating at 13.5 nm as an “EUV [Extreme Ultraviolet] Light Source”)
`
`(Ex. 1008); (Eden Decl. ¶ 32 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`The ’982 patent does not provide a definition of the term “light source” and
`
`uses the term consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of the term. The
`
`’982 patent states that parameters such as the wavelength of the light from a light
`
`source will vary depending upon the application. (’982 patent, 1:18-20 (Ex.
`
`1001).) The specification describes “ultraviolet light” as an example of the type of
`
`light that can be generated: “emitted light 136 (e.g., at least one or more
`
`wavelengths of ultraviolet light).” (’982 patent, 7:65-67 (Ex. 1001); see also id. at
`
`6:47-49 (discussing the ultraviolet light 136 generated by the plasma 132 of the
`
`light source 100), 8:6-9, 8:37-39.) (Eden Decl. ¶ 33 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`Therefore, the term “light source” should be construed to mean “a source of
`
`electromagnetic radiation in the extreme ultraviolet (10 nm to 100 nm), vacuum
`
`ultraviolet (100 nm to 200 nm), ultraviolet (200 nm to 400 nm), visible (400 to 700
`
`nm), near-infrared (700 nm to 1,000 nm (1µm)), middle infrared (1 µm to 10 µm),
`
`8
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`or far infrared (10 µm to 1000 µm) regions of the spectrum.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 34
`
`(Ex. 1003).)
`
` “High brightness light”
`
`B.
`All the challenged claims recite the term “high brightness light.” For
`
`purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness light”2 should be construed
`
`to include “light sufficiently bright to be useful for inspection, testing or measuring
`
`properties associated with semiconductor wafers or materials used in the
`
`fabrication of wafers, or as a source of illumination in a lithography system used in
`
`the fabrication of wafers, microscopy systems, photoresist curing systems, or
`
`endoscopic tools.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 35 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`
`2 For purposes of this proceeding, it is sufficient to interpret “high brightness light”
`
`as Petitioners explain above and each prior art reference used in the grounds of
`
`unpatentability is directed to providing light with sufficient brightness for purposes
`
`identified in the challenged patent. Petitioners note that in an infringement
`
`proceeding in which the required brightness of the light were at issue, claims
`
`reciting “high brightness light” could be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
`
`paragraph for indefiniteness because the patent does not specify how bright the
`
`light must be.
`
`9
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The ’982 patent defines “brightness”3 as “the power radiated by a source of
`
`light per unit surface area onto a unit solid angle.” (’982 patent, 4:46-47 (Ex.
`
`1001).) The brightness of the light produced by a light source “determines” the
`
`ability of a system or operator to “see or measure things [] with adequate
`
`resolution.” (Id. 4:47-51.) Accordingly, the brightness of a light is associated with
`
`the ability to see or measure properties of a surface.
`
`The ’982 patent recognizes that various uses for high brightness light existed
`
`before the ’982 patent was filed. The patent recognizes in the Background of the
`
`Invention that, “[f]or example, a high brightness light source can be used for
`
`inspection, testing or measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers
`
`or materials used in the fabrication of wafers (e.g., reticles and photomasks).”
`
`(’982 patent, 1:11-14 (Ex. 1001).) It also identifies light sources that can be used
`
`“as a source of illumination in a lithography system used in the fabrication of
`
`wafers, a microscopy system[], or a photoresist curing system” as further examples
`
`of high brightness light sources. (’982 patent, 1:11-17 (Ex. 1001).) Additionally,
`
`it describes and claims “a wafer inspection tool, a microscope, a metrology tool, a
`
`lithography tool, [and] an endoscopic tool” as tools for which the high brightness
`
`3 Although the ’982 patent uses the term “brightness,” “spectral brightness” is the
`
`more common term in optics and lasers. “Spectral brightness” refers to the optical
`
`power radiated per unit of wavelength (nm) into steradians, the unit of solid angle.
`
`10
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`light is produced. (’982 patent, 2:33-38, 10:11-14 (Ex. 1001).) More generally,
`
`the patent acknowledges that the brightness and other parameters of the light “vary
`
`depending upon the application.” (’982 patent, 1:18-20).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 37 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`The Patent Owner has argued that the term “high brightness light” should be
`
`understood as “bright enough to be used for inspection, testing, or measuring
`
`properties associated with semiconductor wafers or materials used in the
`
`fabrication of wafers, or in lithography systems used in the fabrication of wafers,
`
`microscopy systems, or photoresist curing systems—i.e., at least as bright as xenon
`
`or mercury arc lamps,” which is similar to the construction proposed below but
`
`omits some of the applications for high brightness light specifically described in
`
`the ’982 patent. See Second Declaration of Donald K. Smith, Ph.D. in Support of
`
`Energetiq’s Reply Brief in Support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, dated
`
`March 17, 2015 (“Second Smith Decl.”) ¶ 20 (Ex. 1011).)
`
`Therefore, for purposes of this proceeding, the term “high brightness light”
`
`should be interpreted to include “light sufficiently bright to be used for inspection,
`
`testing or measuring properties associated with semiconductor wafers or materials
`
`used in the fabrication of wafers, or as a source of illumination in a lithography
`
`system used in the fabrication of wafers, a microscopy system, a photoresist curing
`
`system, or an endoscopic tool.” (Eden Decl. ¶ 39 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`11
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`VII. THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE INVALID
`A. Laser Sustained Plasma Light Sources Were Known Long Before
`the Priority Date of the ’982 Patent
`
`When the application that led to the ’982 patent was filed, there was nothing
`
`new about a light source using an ignition source to generate a plasma in a
`
`chamber and a laser to sustain the plasma to produce high brightness light from the
`
`plasma. This concept had been known and widely used since at least as early as
`
`the 1980s, more than two decades before the application date. For example, in
`
`1983, Gärtner et al. filed a patent application entitled “Radiation source for optical
`
`devices, notably for photolithographic reproduction systems,” which published on
`
`May 3, 1985 as French Patent Application No. 2554302 (“Gärtner,” Ex. 1004).
`
`Gärtner discloses a light source with the same features claimed in the ’982 patent:
`
`(1) a sealed chamber 1 (green); (2) an ignition source – pulsed laser 10 (blue),
`
`which generates a plasma 14; and (3) a laser to produce light – laser 9 (red), which
`
`provides energy to the plasma 14 and produces light 15. (Eden Decl. ¶ 40 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`12
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Similarly, Cremers et al. published a paper in 1984 entitled, “Evaluation of
`
`the continuous optical discharge for spectrochemical analysis.” (Ex. 1005.)
`
`Cremers describes a laser sustained plasma light source producing a “continuous
`
`optical discharge” (COD) that generated a “very bright white light.” (Cremers at
`
`666 (Ex. 1005).) As shown in Figure 2, reproduced below, Cremers’s light source
`
`included the same features as the ’982 patent: (1) a sealed chamber (green); (2) an
`
`ignition source – a pair of electrodes or pulsed laser PB (both shown in blue),
`
`which ionizes a gas to generate a plasma in the chamber; and (3) a laser, the cw-
`
`CO2 laser (red), to supply energy to the plasma to produce the continuous optical
`
`discharge. (Id. Fig. 2.) (Eden Decl. ¶ 41 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`13
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cremers, Fig. 2 (Ex. 1005)
`
`By the late 1980’s, this concept was already being taught in textbooks. (See
`
`D. Keefer, “Laser Sustained Plasmas,” Chapter 4, in Radziemski et al., “Laser-
`
`Induced Plasmas and Applications,” CRC Press (1989) (Ex. 1006).) (Eden Decl.
`
`¶ 42 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`Thus, the purportedly novel features of the ’982 patent are nothing more
`
`than the standard features of laser sustained plasma light sources across several
`
`generations of technology from the 1980’s to the early 2000’s. (Eden Decl. ¶ 43
`
`(Ex. 1003).)
`
`VIII. GROUNDS FOR FINDING THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS INVALID
`Pursuant to Rule 42.104(b)(4)-(5), specific grounds for finding the
`
`challenged claims invalid are identified below and discussed in the Eden
`
`Declaration (Ex. 1003). These grounds demonstrate in detail that claims 1, 3-4, 10,
`
`16, 21, 24-27, 30, 31, and 34 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`A. Ground 1: Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24-25, 30, and 31 are
`anticipated by Gärtner
`
`14
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 16, 21, 24-25, 30, and 31 are anticipated by Gärtner.
`
`1.
`
`Gärtner is prior art that was not considered by the Patent Office
`during examination
`
`Gärtner is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) because it was published more
`
`than a year before the earliest claimed priority date for the ’982 patent, which is
`
`March 31, 2006. Gärtner was not considered by the Examiner during prosecution
`
`of the ’982 patent.
`
`Overview of Gärtner
`
`2.
`Gärtner describes a light source for optical devices: “The present invention
`
`relates to a radiation source for optical devices, in particular for photolithographic
`
`reproduction systems.” (Gärtner at 1:1-2 (Ex 1004).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 46 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`Gärtner is directed to the same problem as the ’982 patent, namely,
`
`producing light that is brighter than that produced by conventional arc lamps for
`
`applications like photolithography. (Compare Gärtner at 1:2-4 (“It is preferably
`
`applied in cases where a radiated power is required which is greater than that from
`
`pressurised mercury vapour lamps, such as in photolithographic appliances for
`
`illuminating a photoresist layer on a semiconductor wafer.”) (Ex. 1004) with ’982
`
`patent, 1:20-40 (“The state of the art in, for example, wafer inspection systems
`
`involves the use of xenon or mercury arc lamps to produce light. . . . [T]hese arc
`
`lamps do not provide sufficient brightness for some applications, especially in the
`
`15
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`ultraviolet spectrum. . . . Accordingly, a need therefore exists for improved high
`
`brightness light sources.”) (Ex. 1001).) In fact, it has been known since at least the
`
`1970’s that laser produced plasmas are brighter than conventional arc lamps. (See,
`
`e.g., U.S. Patent No. 3,900,803 at 1:39-43 (“[T]he total light output, from a laser-
`
`produced plasma is two to three times greater in the ultraviolet region (200
`
`nanometers to 300 nanometers) than is the spectral radiance from a xenon
`
`flashlamp of comparable size and input energy.”) (Ex. 1010).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 47
`
`(Ex. 1003).)
`
`Gärtner proposes the same solution as the ’982 patent, albeit over 20 years
`
`earlier: (1) a sealed chamber, (2) an ignition source, and (3) a laser that provides
`
`energy that sustains a plasma providing high-brightness light. (Compare Gärtner
`
`at 4:32-5:9, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004) with ’982 patent, 1:46-50, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001).) For
`
`example, as shown below, Figure 1 of Gärtner a depicts a “gas-tight chamber 1”
`
`(green); “laser 10” (blue) as an ignition source for generating the plasma 14; and a
`
`“laser 9” (red) for sustaining the plasma and producing a high brightness light.
`
`(Gärtner at 4-5 (Ex. 1004).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 48 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`16
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`’982 patent, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1001)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Gärtner, Fig. 1 (Ex. 1004)
`
`Gärtner operates in the same manner described in the ’982 patent. In
`
`particular, Gärtner explains that gas-tight chamber 1 is filled with a discharge
`
`medium 2. (Compare Gärtner at 4:31-34 (“gas-tight chamber 1 contains the
`
`discharge medium 2”) (Ex. 1004) with ’982 patent, 4:29-32 (“light source 100
`
`includes a chamber 128 that contains an[] ionizable medium (not shown).”) (Ex.
`
`1001).) The discharge medium 2 is an ionizable gas such as xenon. (Compare
`
`Gärtner at 5 (describing using “argon or xenon atmosphere as active medium”)
`
`(Ex. 1004) with ’982 patent, 7:49-52 (“[T]he ionizable medium can be . . . Xe, Ar .
`
`. . .”) (Ex. 1001).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 49 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`Gärtner’s laser 10 is an ignition source that ionizes the discharge medium 2.
`
`(Compare Gärtner at 5:5-8 (“The radiation 13 from the laser 10, which is a
`
`17
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`nitrogen pulse laser, is focussed on the same point by the lens 7 which allows
`
`ultraviolet to pass and produces an electrical discharge there and as a result an
`
`absorbent plasma 14”) (Ex. 1004) with ’982 patent, 5:29-33 (“The ignition source
`
`140 generates an electrical discharge in the chamber 128 (e.g., the region 130 of
`
`the chamber 128) to ignite the ionizable medium.”), 7:3-14 (“Alternative types of
`
`ignition sources 140 that can be used in the light source 100 include . . . pulsed
`
`lasers . . . .”) (Ex. 1001).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 50 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`Gärtner’s laser 9 is a laser that provides energy to the ionized gas within the
`
`chamber to sustain a high brightness light. (Compare Gärtner at 5:5-9 (“absorbent
`
`plasma 14 which is heated to high temperatures under the influence of the radiation
`
`11 [from laser 9]. The radiation 15 from the plasma can be fed into the
`
`downstream optical system through the window 8.”) (Ex. 1004) with ’982 patent,
`
`4:36-39 (“The light source 100 also includes at least one laser source 104 that
`
`generates a laser beam that is provided to the plasma 132 located in the chamber
`
`128 to initiate and/or sustain the high brightness light 136.”) (Ex. 1001).) (Eden
`
`Decl. ¶ 51 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`Independent Claim 1
`
`3.
`As illustrated in the chart below, Gärtner anticipates every limitation of the
`
`independent claims of the ’982 patent. (Eden Decl. ¶ 52 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`a)
`
`Claim 1 – Preamble (element [1p])
`
`18
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`The preamble of claim 1 recites “A light source.” (’982 patent, claim 1 (Ex.
`
`1001).) Gärtner discloses “[a] light source” as recited in the claim. (Eden Decl.
`
`¶ 53 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`For example, Gärtner discloses a “radiation source for optical devices,”
`
`which is a light source. Gärtner’s light source can be used for applications like
`
`“illuminating a photoresist.” (Gärtner at 1:4 (Ex. 1004); see also ’982 patent at
`
`1:20-24 (admitting light sources were known in the art) (Ex.1001).) (Eden Decl.
`
`¶ 54 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`b)
`Claim 1 recites “a chamber.” (’982 patent, claim 1 (Ex. 1001).) Gärtner
`
`Claim 1 – Chamber (element [1a])
`
`discloses “a chamber” as recited in the claim. (Eden Decl. ¶ 55 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`For example, Gärtner discloses a “gas-tight chamber.” (Gärtner at 3:20, Fig.
`
`1 (disclosing “gas-tight chamber 1”); see also id. at 5, Fig. 2 (“A casing 16, the
`
`concave mirror 17 and the quartz window 18 constitute the gas-tight chamber
`
`containing the discharge medium 19.”); id. at 6:9, Figs. 3-4 (disclosing “discharge
`
`chambers 35 and 36”) (Ex. 1004); ’982 patent at 1:20-24 (admitting light source
`
`chambers were known in the art) (Ex. 1001).) Gärtner’s gas-tight chamber
`
`contains a “discharge medium” such as “argon or xenon” (ionized gas). (Gärtner at
`
`4-5 (Ex. 1004).) (Eden Decl. ¶ 56 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`19
`
`

`
`U.S. Patent 7,435,982
`Petition for Inter Partes Review
`Claim 1 – Ignition Source (element [1b])
`
`c)
`Claim 1 recites “an ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber.”
`
`(’982 patent, claim 1 (Ex. 1001).) Gärtner discloses “an ignition source for
`
`ionizing a gas within the chamber” as recited in the claim. (Eden Decl. ¶ 57 (Ex.
`
`1003).)
`
`Gärtner’s “laser 10” is an ignition source. (Gärtner at 5:5-8 (Ex. 1004).) In
`
`particular, laser 10 is “a nitrogen pulse laser” that “produces an electrical
`
`discharge” in the medium to create an “absorbent plasma 14.” (Gärtner at 5:5-8
`
`(Ex. 1004).) Gärtner also discloses electrodes as an ignition source. (Gärtner at
`
`1:22-23 (describing “the electrodes of the discharge cavity”) (Ex. 1004).) Thus,
`
`Gärtner discloses both electrodes and pulsed laser ignition sources for ionizing a
`
`gas within the chamber. (Eden Decl. ¶ 58 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`d)
`
`Claim 1 – Laser providing energy to the ionized gas to
`produce a high brightness light (element [1c])
`
`Claim 1 recites “at least one laser for providing energy to the ionized gas
`
`within the chamber to produce a high brightness light.” (’982 patent, claim 1 (Ex.
`
`1001).) Gärtner discloses “at least one laser for providing energy to the ionized
`
`gas within the chamber to produce a high brightness light” as recited in the claim.
`
`(Eden Decl. ¶ 59 (Ex. 1003).)
`
`For example, Gärtner teaches “t